I think this is fundamentally untrue. Of course, European plundered the New World, Africa and to lesser degree Asia, but I do not think that plunder alone was the source of North's wealth. I think a far greater factor was trade - perhaps on advantageous to the industrialized countries conditions, but certainly NOT theft.
Consider the difference between Spain and Portugal on the one hand, and Germany and Sweden on the other. Spaniard and Portuguese engaged almost exclusively in plunder of their colonies - and whatever their colonies received back from Europe - it was produced for the most part by countries other than Spain or Portugal (e.g. England).
Germany and Sweden had no colonies at all (a brief attempt to colonize Tanganyika by Germans shortly before WW1 was an ultimate failure that further underscores this point). In fact, the rise of German chemical industry was a response to the fact that Germany was cut off from raw materials that the British or the French could obtain from their colonies.
Now let's look at the outcomes. Spain and Portugal became backward than the rest of Western Europe by the 18th century or so, despite the wealth their plundered from their colonies. Germany and Swede, otoh, became industrial engines of Europe despite their lack of colonies.
England is an interesting case, because while it had colonies their colonial model was not outright domination and plunder, but indirect rule and trade (on advantageous to the British industry terms, but trade nonetheless). England's outcome is an especially interesting case because it suggests that the role of colonialism in Eurpean development was not plunder of wealth but rather opening of new opportunities that stimulated growth of domestic potential - IF such potential existed. Stated differently, it is extensive interaction with other countries and cultures (even if on unequal terms) that promoted the creation of wealth.
The case of Japan further supports that point - initially Japan tried to close itself to Western influence but ultimately was forced to open its borders. Then it dramatically reversed its policies in the Meji restoration and eagerly adopted Western innovations. In fifty or so years, it became world class power, nit just industrial but also military as demonstrated by its defeat of Russia in 1905.
In short, colonialism did play a significant role in European development - but that role was not that of primitive plunder but that of stimulation of the local potential - which is pretty much what extensive international / intercultural exchange always produced.
Of course, there is the question why did not the Southern countries benefit from that interaction to the same extent as European did. The answer to this question lies, imho, in their local potential. For example, by contrast to Japan, China and India were internally divided and had weal central authority - of which colonial powers naturally took advantage, but which also prevented these countries from quickly turning around like Japan did in the Meji restoration. To further illustrate that point, both China nd India fared a far better when they finally did manage to centralize their respective political authorities.
As to sub-Saharan Africa - it was so far behind that simply did not have sufficient infrastructure on which they could built their industrial and military power, like Japan did. However, they benefited tremendously in other ways - mainly by importing political and organizational infrastructure whole sale. For example, East African countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania) are carbon copies of the British system, especially its common law. What is more, European colonization, while certainly morally deplorable, was a relative advantage over the previous Arab colonization and the even more deplorable slave trade that it created.
To summarize - cross national and cross cultural exchange rather than primitive plunder seems to be the benefit of the colonial era, even though those benefits were distributed very unequally. Obviously, the North benefited more than South or even Far East, but the former benefited nonetheless. I do not think that the primitive plunder theory has any explanatory power in that development.
Wojtek